I was just about to post that article....
What amuses me is that, once again, the ICC makes policy on the hoof!
It's a pity they didn't announce this before the tournament started. After all, earlier this month the umpires had no problem allowing Tendulkar to have a runner when he developed cramp in the ODI series in Sri Lanka. But, I suppose, it's better late than never. I hope this now means that there will be a lot more consistency in terms of decisions re cramp and runners in future.

Dont know about substitute fielders rulings, although in my view that is also happening far too much of late (and not just for toilet breaks and on field niggles and the like). But in that case, Shah was in the wrong and should have stayed on the field. I did notice too, that soon after that 'ruckus' Shah returned to the field and took a catch (Smiths?). So Flower probably, and quite wisely, sent him out. Regardless, it is another area of the game that needs clamping down.

As a few others have mentioned, I think there should be more scrutiny of the umpires in this case. Nowhere in the laws that Sanz posted a few pages back does it say that the opposing captain has any say whatsoever in allowing a runner or a substitute fielder. Surely, if you're an international umpire, you shouldn't be just deferring anything you're not sure about on to the opposition captain?

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

As a few others have mentioned, I think there should be more scrutiny of the umpires in this case. Nowhere in the laws that Sanz posted a few pages back does it say that the opposing captain has any say whatsoever in allowing a runner or a substitute fielder. Surely, if you're an international umpire, you shouldn't be just deferring anything you're not sure about on to the opposition captain?

Agreed, it was incosistent and bad umpiring, especially at international level. But since Strauss was asked, he should have either taken the moral high ground and agreed or stated it wasn't his decision and walked away. The absolute last thing he should have done was emphatically shake his head and say no - that's where it became unsporting.

Agreed, it was incosistent and bad umpiring, especially at international level. But since Strauss was asked, he should have either taken the moral high ground and agreed or stated it wasn't his decision and walked away. The absolute last thing he should have done was emphatically shake his head and say no - that's where it became unsporting.

How is it unsporting to deny someone a runner?

In ODIs particularly, if you're incapable of running then you're incapable of batting.

If the PCB can push for the Oval test to be declared abandoned retrospectively, surely the good men there can push for revoking its status second highest ODI score too, for the sake of consistency. Although I suspect its that bully BCCI using its money power to kill off any such attempts on the part of the PCB.

Just for the record, I thought Strauss was extremely sporting when he called Angelo Mathews back the crease, and deserves all the kudos coming his way for upholding the spirit of the game in the match against Sri Lanka....

However, the opposite has happened here, and Strauss deserves any criticism coming his way. Especially since England batsmen have used runners for batsmen who've suffered from cramp this decade, including Trescothick and Bell, as far as I can remember. There is also a columnist on the BBC who recalls an ODI last year in India when Shah and Prior developed cramps and used Bell as a runner.
So, this sudden change of attitude by Strauss towards using a runner for cramp is a bit disingenuous, and it will be interesting to see how long he and his team maintain that stance....

What the hell did any of the previous incidents have to do with Strauss?

You're bringing up the one-way hypocrisy from earlier in the thread. "Another English player used a runner for cramp once, when Strauss wasn't captain and had no say in the running of the team, therefore he's a hypocrite!"

What the hell did any of the previous incidents have to do with Strauss?

You're bringing up the one-way hypocrisy from earlier in the thread. "Another English player used a runner for cramp once, when Strauss wasn't captain and had no say in the running of the team, therefore he's a hypocrite!"

Sorry, I wasn't clear there....

I meant that in his position as England captain, considering that English players had benefitted from runners for cramp. YOu can't have rules being changed according to who's captain of the England side. What happens if Strauss is injured and Cook becomes captain? Would the policy on runners for cramp change again?

But this is an academic debate only now, because the ICC have finally been forced to rule on this issue, and hopefully there should be more clarity on the issue from now on....

That said, this now opens a brand new can of worms. What if Smith retired injured, and wanted to return to bat at the fall of another wicket? Would Strauss have refused him the permission to return to the crease?